An ongoing effort to tease apart various historical skirmishes upon the battlefield of that one great Cosmic War: the War for the Definition of Reality.
Some confusion arises because of the different uses of the words "gnostic" and "gnosticism", as well as the words "orthodox" and "orthodoxy". Essentially, both pairs of words can refer either to an established "sect" with a corresponding fixed doctrine, or to a principle. Moriah has used them to refer to their principles.
Orthodox thus would not refer to the Greek or Eastern Orthodox church and its doctrines, but rather to the notion of orthodoxy itself. Orthodoxy as a principle simply means "a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards, with acceptable or 'correct' doctrines or beliefs." Well the question arises, 'correct' as defined by whom? 'Acceptable' ... to whom??? And the answer becomes, whomever establishes a notion as to what constitutes 'correct' doctrine or belief. Catholicism has its definition. So do the Lutherans, the Baptists, and the Methodists. The Pentecostals and AoG'ers have theirs, the WoF'ers have theirs, the Mormons, JWs and Seventh-day Adventists have theirs.
Who, then, can lay any actual claim to what constitutes 'correct' doctrines or beliefs? Bingo, therein lies the crux of the matter. Whomever manages to establish in the public square or in the unconscious "default" perception of the multitude that their beliefs constitute the 'correct' ones, the 'correct' and 'only' way to view what Scripture says, will be perceived as constituting "orthodoxy" the principle. And the history of the development of the church during the New Testament period and following on into the councils that decided what shall constitute canonical scripture, reflects not only that very struggle between diverse groups holding differing views of Christianity, but also the very struggle itself between this principle, that 'orthodoxy' exists at all, versus a competing principle of 'gnosticism' which by definition essentially annihilates the concept of orthodoxy entirely, leaving the definition of Christian belief and experience where it belongs: in the hands of such individuals as directly and personally obtain it through their own individual, direct, personal encounters and faith journeys with Christ.
Gnosticism in this context, you see, likewise, would not refer to the specific Hellenic sect of that time period and its distinctive mythos and beliefs (e.g., the demiurge, the dualism between flesh and spirit, etc.) but to a principle which essentially states that salvation does not come through mental assent unto, and conformity with, some fixed doctrinal belief system hammered out by human consensus and codified into an institution, but by the individual's obtaining of gnosis (secret or divine knowledge) directly from the divine source of all. In Christian terms, this principle translates to an experience of salvation in Christ which comes not from human Christian-flavored religious institutions but through the individual and personal experience of encountering Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit, which results in direct, firsthand knowledge of God no human may gainsay -- such as foretold in these immortal words of Jeremiah 31:34:
Ironically none of them could have even arisen or gotten started absent the gnostic principle, meaning, without an individual having a direct, singular, personal encounter with Christ leading to his own obtaining of knowledge through the Holy Spirit. That alone should give us pause for thought.
Some confusion arises because of the different uses of the words "gnostic" and "gnosticism", as well as the words "orthodox" and "orthodoxy". Essentially, both pairs of words can refer either to an established "sect" with a corresponding fixed doctrine, or to a principle. Moriah has used them to refer to their principles.
Orthodox thus would not refer to the Greek or Eastern Orthodox church and its doctrines, but rather to the notion of orthodoxy itself. Orthodoxy as a principle simply means "a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards, with acceptable or 'correct' doctrines or beliefs." Well the question arises, 'correct' as defined by whom? 'Acceptable' ... to whom??? And the answer becomes, whomever establishes a notion as to what constitutes 'correct' doctrine or belief. Catholicism has its definition. So do the Lutherans, the Baptists, and the Methodists. The Pentecostals and AoG'ers have theirs, the WoF'ers have theirs, the Mormons, JWs and Seventh-day Adventists have theirs.
Who, then, can lay any actual claim to what constitutes 'correct' doctrines or beliefs? Bingo, therein lies the crux of the matter. Whomever manages to establish in the public square or in the unconscious "default" perception of the multitude that their beliefs constitute the 'correct' ones, the 'correct' and 'only' way to view what Scripture says, will be perceived as constituting "orthodoxy" the principle. And the history of the development of the church during the New Testament period and following on into the councils that decided what shall constitute canonical scripture, reflects not only that very struggle between diverse groups holding differing views of Christianity, but also the very struggle itself between this principle, that 'orthodoxy' exists at all, versus a competing principle of 'gnosticism' which by definition essentially annihilates the concept of orthodoxy entirely, leaving the definition of Christian belief and experience where it belongs: in the hands of such individuals as directly and personally obtain it through their own individual, direct, personal encounters and faith journeys with Christ.
Gnosticism in this context, you see, likewise, would not refer to the specific Hellenic sect of that time period and its distinctive mythos and beliefs (e.g., the demiurge, the dualism between flesh and spirit, etc.) but to a principle which essentially states that salvation does not come through mental assent unto, and conformity with, some fixed doctrinal belief system hammered out by human consensus and codified into an institution, but by the individual's obtaining of gnosis (secret or divine knowledge) directly from the divine source of all. In Christian terms, this principle translates to an experience of salvation in Christ which comes not from human Christian-flavored religious institutions but through the individual and personal experience of encountering Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit, which results in direct, firsthand knowledge of God no human may gainsay -- such as foretold in these immortal words of Jeremiah 31:34:
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
This epic power-struggle by those desirous of a consensus 'orthodoxy' (far more easily controlled by humans) over and above the authentic individual experience of 'gnosis' basically underpinned and shaped the entire formation of the NT church, the determination of what constituted valid scripture, and as a result, has continued to underpin all efforts to nail down and define "Christianity" up to our present day, whether Catholic, 'Orthodox', Protestant, Pentecostal, or otherwise. The early Quakers and the modern "emergent church" movement (which takes some very scathing, UNChristian and MOST UNdeserved criticism from those with a vested interest in retaining a hierarchy which permits them to control others' experiences and perceptions through the vehicle of human religious institutions) IMO represent a couple of historically recent exceptions to this rule but by and large all Christian "movements" since those early times have been "orthodoxies" in progress and in principle.
Ironically none of them could have even arisen or gotten started absent the gnostic principle, meaning, without an individual having a direct, singular, personal encounter with Christ leading to his own obtaining of knowledge through the Holy Spirit. That alone should give us pause for thought.
